Gonzalo and Jari, To clarify, my comment was about the sentence in the Abstract saying: "The same LOCATOR_SET parameter can also be used to support end-host-multihoming, but the procedures are out of scope for this document and are specified elsewhere."
My suggestion is to replace this with "The LOCATOR_SET parameter can also be used to support end host multihoming. This functionality is specified in RFC[Replace with the RFC number for draft-ietf-hip-multihoming]". If this is not an accepted language, then I suggest removing the sentence quoted above from the Abstract altogether. There is no need for it. Reference to draft-ietf-hip-multihoming already exists in the text and in the "Informative references" section of the document. The reason behind my comment is that the current open ended sentence doesn't provide useful information and might create confusion as I explained in my original comments. I don't feel strongly about the exact way this comment gets addressed, though. Thanks, Orit. -----Original Message----- From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.ar...@piuha.net] Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 11:38 PM To: Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camari...@ericsson.com> Cc: Orit Levin <or...@microsoft.com>; Tom Henderson <t...@tomh.org>; draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis....@ietf.org; General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org> Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-12 I think the wording as it is on -13 is fine. I.e., RFC number but no reference. I wouldn't necessarily use RFC numbers even in general in abstract, but "This RFC replaces RFC nnnn." I think is fine and appropriate. Jari _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
